Ex Parte Ayash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

13216366 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/216,366 08/24/2011 Barry Ayash 20101360USNP-XER2605US01 3981
62095 7590 02/22/2017
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
RUDOLPH, VINCENT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY AYASH, JOSEPH HARRISON, and JACK HIRSH
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,3 661
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 2, 3, 5—7, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14—16 have
been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Xerox Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,366
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention addresses the problem that occurs when a
printing system is not at a good image quality state and cannot print images
at a required image quality. Spec. 11. Appellants’ invention ensures that
image critical print jobs are processed when the printing system is in an
image quality state that allows it to print image critical jobs with at least a
particular image quality threshold. Id.
Exemplary independent claim 2 is reproduced below.
2. A method for maintaining image quality, comprising:
initially establishing a plurality of image quality threshold
standards;
assigning an image quality threshold standard from the
plurality of image quality threshold standards to an associated
image critical job;
prior to printing, comparing the assigned image quality
threshold standard of each associated image critical job to a
quality system check value;
wherein the quality system check value is an inline image
quality measurement;
releasing and printing selected image critical jobs only if
the quality system check value is at least equal to the assigned
image quality threshold standard; and,
queuing any image critical jobs having an assigned image
quality threshold standard greater than the quality system check
value prior to printing and only releasing and printing any image
critical jobs when the quality system check value is at least equal
to the assigned image quality threshold standard.
2
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,366
References and Rejection
Claims 2, 3, 5—7, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 182 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Veen (US 6,543,873 Bl, Apr. 8,
2003), Emerson (US 7,697,728 B2, Apr. 13, 2010), and Kurahashi (US
7,092,654 B2, Aug. 15, 2006).
ANALYSIS
A. Whether the Cited Combination of Van Veen, Emerson, and
Kurahashi Teaches or Suggests “releasing and printing
selected image critical jobs only if the quality system check
value is at least equal to the assigned image quality threshold
standard, ” as Recited in Claim 2
Appellants argue Emerson teaches “[t]he comparison of already
printed documents to a predetermined quality threshold” in order to sort the
documents and determine whether they are of acceptable quality. App.
Br. 13. Because the documents are already printed, Appellants argue
“Emerson does not provide support for reviewing a scanned image and a
quality threshold before the [document] can be printed.” Id. at 14.
According to Appellants “Emerson does not use the quality threshold review
as a prelude to any printing.” Id. Appellants further argue “Emerson does
not provide a method of queuing an image job prior to printing but rather
merely sorts previously printed jobs based on the image quality determined
thereafter.” Id.
2 Although claim 18 is omitted from the statement of the rejection, the body
of the rejection addresses claim 18. Final Act. 4. Accordingly, we consider
the omission of claim 18 from the statement of the rejection to be a
typographical error.
3
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,366
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they attack
Emerson individually and fail to take into consideration the Examiner’s
findings regarding Van Veen. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Van Veen
describes that “[sjervice strips are printed and evaluated to determine
whether the image quality of the print job is at a predetermined quality
threshold” (Ans. 8 (citing Van Veen 4:4—8)), and that “a service strip may be
printed prior to [the] initiation of the print job” {id. (emphasis added) (citing
Van Veen 8:1—3)). Thus, Van Veen teaches reviewing image quality before
the print job, as required by claim 2. The Examiner relies upon Emerson as
teaching that a document of acceptable quality is released and a document of
unacceptable quality is queued for re-processing. Final Act. 5—6 (citing
Emerson 3:21—26; 3:34—37; 3:40-43). Thus we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Van Veen and Emerson teaches or suggests
“releasing and printing selected image critical jobs only if the quality system
check value is at least equal to the assigned image quality threshold
standard,” as recited in claim 2.
B. Whether the Cited Combination of References Teaches or
Suggests “queuing any image critical jobs having an assigned
image quality threshold standard greater than the quality
system check value prior to printing, ” as Recited in Claim 2
Appellants further argue, largely for the same reasons, that “Emerson
does not hold any image critical jobs nor does it contemplate same, but
rather sorts and routes documents post printing.” App. Br. 14. We are
unpersuaded, again, because Appellants’ arguments do not address the
Examiner’s finding that Van Veen teaches reviewing image quality before
the print job. Further, Appellants do not persuasively show error in the
Examiner’s finding that Emerson teaches queuing and/or holding images
4
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,366
that do not meet a quality threshold so that the images can be sent for re­
imaging. Ans. 10 (citing Emerson 3:40-43). We agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Van Veen’s teachings of reviewing image quality
before printing, and Emerson’s teaching of holding images that do not meet
a quality threshold and sending those images for re-processing teaches or
suggests “releasing and printing selected image critical jobs only if the
quality system check value is at least equal to the assigned image quality
threshold standard” and “queuing any image critical jobs having an assigned
image quality threshold standard greater than the quality system check value
prior to printing and only releasing and printing any image critical jobs when
the quality system check value is at least equal to the assigned image quality
threshold standard,” as recited in claim 2.
C. Whether the Examiner Used Hindsight Reconstruction in
Articulating a Reason to Combine the Cited References
Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner appears to be using hindsight and
Applicants’ own disclosure” in articulating a reason to combine the
references. App. Br. 14—15. We disagree. The Examiner provides a reason
to combine Van Veen and Emerson, stating that such a combination “would
significantly reduce image correction processing cost required before
printing because any needed corrections, adjustments or even shift
alignments can be corrected. This would save a lot of valuable time and
money that could be wasted in printing a lower quality job.” Final Act. 6.
The goal of saving time and money by avoiding image correction is based
directly on Van Veen, which emphasizes the costs of high-end printing in
the textile printing industry (see Van Veen 3:50-63), saving the user’s time,
improving printer service protocol, and reducing printer error rates (see id. at
5
Appeal 2016-000773
Application 13/216,366
4:42—50). Thus, the Examiner has articulated a rationale to combine the
cited references that stems from the prior art and knowledge of the ordinary
artisan, rather than from hindsight.
D. Conclusion
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 2 and of independent claims 7, 13, and 18, which were argued together
as a group. See App. Br. 12. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—7, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6